Simon Deseive1, Francesca Pugliese2, Aloha Meave3, Erick Alexanderson3, Stefan Martinoff4, Martin Hadamitzky4, Steffen Massberg1, Jörg Hausleiter5. 1. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistr 15, Munich 81377, Germany. 2. Barts and The London NIHR Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine, The London Chest Hospital, London, Great Britain. 3. Instituto Nacional de Cardiología 'Ignacio Chávez', Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México. 4. Institut für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Klinik an der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany. 5. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistr 15, Munich 81377, Germany. Electronic address: joerg.hausleiter@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about radiation dose of coronary CT angiography. Although high-pitch acquisition technique yields high potential for radiation dose savings, it is more vulnerable to artifacts, which impair diagnostic image quality. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare 2 scan strategies for coronary CT angiography: a high-pitch helical scan first or a conventional scan first strategy. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter trial, we randomized 303 consecutive patients with a low and stable heart rate to either of the aforementioned mentioned strategies. Intravenous β-blockers were administered to achieve target heart rates. All scans were performed on a second-generation dual-source CT scanner. In case of nondiagnostic image quality, coronary CT angiography was allowed to be repeated. The primary end point was to demonstrate noninferior image quality in the high-pitch group. Image quality was assessed on a 4-point scale (1: nondiagnostic, 4: excellent). Secondary end point was total radiation dose. RESULTS: In the high-pitch helical first group, repeat scanning was necessary in 21 patients compared with 14 patients in the conventional first scan group (P = .25). Image quality in the high-pitch group was noninferior compared to the conventional scan group (3.81 ± 0.35 vs. 3.83 ± 0.37; P for noninferiority <.0001). The total effective radiation dose estimate was 58% lower in the high-pitch group (2.0 ± 2.4 vs. 4.7 ± 4.8 mSv; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a low and stable heart rate diagnostic image quality can be maintained with a high-pitch helical scan first strategy while 58% of radiation dose can be saved.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about radiation dose of coronary CT angiography. Although high-pitch acquisition technique yields high potential for radiation dose savings, it is more vulnerable to artifacts, which impair diagnostic image quality. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare 2 scan strategies for coronary CT angiography: a high-pitch helical scan first or a conventional scan first strategy. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter trial, we randomized 303 consecutive patients with a low and stable heart rate to either of the aforementioned mentioned strategies. Intravenous β-blockers were administered to achieve target heart rates. All scans were performed on a second-generation dual-source CT scanner. In case of nondiagnostic image quality, coronary CT angiography was allowed to be repeated. The primary end point was to demonstrate noninferior image quality in the high-pitch group. Image quality was assessed on a 4-point scale (1: nondiagnostic, 4: excellent). Secondary end point was total radiation dose. RESULTS: In the high-pitch helical first group, repeat scanning was necessary in 21 patients compared with 14 patients in the conventional first scan group (P = .25). Image quality in the high-pitch group was noninferior compared to the conventional scan group (3.81 ± 0.35 vs. 3.83 ± 0.37; P for noninferiority <.0001). The total effective radiation dose estimate was 58% lower in the high-pitch group (2.0 ± 2.4 vs. 4.7 ± 4.8 mSv; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a low and stable heart rate diagnostic image quality can be maintained with a high-pitch helical scan first strategy while 58% of radiation dose can be saved.
Authors: Peter K T Hui; Hyun Woo Goo; Jing Du; Janice J K Ip; Suzu Kanzaki; Young Jin Kim; Supika Kritsaneepaiboon; Oktavia Lilyasari; Suvipaporn Siripornpitak Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2017-04-24
Authors: Thomas J Stocker; Simon Deseive; Jonathon Leipsic; Martin Hadamitzky; Marcus Y Chen; Ronen Rubinshtein; Mathias Heckner; Jeroen J Bax; Xiang-Ming Fang; Erik Lerkevang Grove; John Lesser; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; James Otton; Sanghoon Shin; Gianluca Pontone; Hugo Marques; Benjamin Chow; Cesar H Nomura; Ramzi Tabbalat; Axel Schmermund; Joon-Won Kang; Christopher Naoum; Melany Atkins; Eugenio Martuscelli; Steffen Massberg; Jörg Hausleiter Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Franziska M Braun; Veronica Holzner; Felix G Meinel; Marco Armbruster; Martina Brandlhuber; Birgit Ertl-Wagner; Wieland H Sommer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Bernhard Bischoff; Simon Deseive; Martin Rampp; Andrei Todica; Marc Wermke; Stefan Martinoff; Steffen Massberg; Maximilian F Reiser; Hans-Christoph Becker; Jörg Hausleiter Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Thomas J Stocker; Simon Deseive; Marcus Chen; Jonathon Leipsic; Martin Hadamitzky; Ronen Rubinshtein; Erik L Grove; Xiang-Ming Fang; John Lesser; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; Hugo Marques; Daniele Andreini; Ramzi Tabbalat; Joon-Won Kang; Joachim Eckert; Patricia Dickson; Signe H Forsdahl; Jess Lambrechtsen; Roberto C Cury; Jörg Hausleiter Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2017-12-05
Authors: Marco M Ochs; Fabian Aus dem Siepen; Thomas Fritz; Florian Andre; Gitsios Gitsioudis; Grigorios Korosoglou; Sebastian Seitz; Yuriy Bogomazov; Christopher L Schlett; Roman Sokiranski; Andre Sommer; Friedemann Gückel; Matthias Brado; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Johannes Görich; Matthias G W Friedrich; Hugo A Katus; Sebastian J Buss Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Rami M Abazid; Osama A Smettei; Akram F Eldesoky; Hanaa Al Saqqah; Habiba S Alenzi; Nora A Altorbak; Sarah S Altorbak; Mehboob Ali Dar Journal: Acta Cardiol Sin Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.672
Authors: Simon Deseive; Leslee J Shaw; James K Min; Stephan Achenbach; Daniele Andreini; Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; Tracy Q Callister; Filippo Cademartiri; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Ricardo C Cury; Augustin DeLago; Allison M Dunning; Gudrun Feuchtner; Philipp A Kaufmann; Yong-Jin Kim; Jonathon Leipsic; Hugo Marques; Erica Maffei; Gianluca Pontone; Gilbert Raff; Ronin Rubinshtein; Todd C Villines; Jörg Hausleiter; Martin Hadamitzky Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 6.875